Now, that's a good thing. The Constitution was meant to vest people with their rights. It is one of the reasons the Supreme Courts of some States have overturned the laws as written on gay marriage. But if the laws are written otherwise, as in the State of Michigan, the Court can do nothing about it.

A Court that does what it can is not an "activist Court." An "activist Court" is one that goes beyond what either a "common reading" or an "originalist" reading would render. see Power Reserved to the People, Respectively

OBAMA: "...but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. "The Warren court -- wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties." [italics added]

How many times must the evidence demonstratethat Obama uses the words of Marxism? If he is no Marxist, why use the languageof Marxism? Obama is lying--by ommission. When he, or Joe Biden, are asked aboutObama's Marxism, no one deny's that he is. They deflate the question by sayingwhat it is that Obama is trying to accomplish and they do it using words thateveryone likes to hear--but they don't deny it.

The redistribution of wealth is socialism. Marx did write the phrase spoken by that Florida newscaster when she questioned Biden: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." That means take from those who can be taken from; give it to those from whom nothing can be taken. This is the doctrine of economic justice Obama spoke of.

Obama says that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we (the government) are not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power.

It is no longer We the People. He also says something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints, constraints put there in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers specifically to prevent men such as Obama from attempting to subvert the individual sovereignty they called unalienable.

Now, that's a good thing. The Constitution was meant to vest people with their rights. It is one of the reasons the Supreme Courts of some States have overturned the laws as written on gay marriage. But if the laws are written otherwise, as in the State of Michigan, the Court can do nothing about it.

A Court that does what it can is not an "activist Court." An "activist Court" is one that goes beyond what either a "common reading" or an "originalist" reading would render. see Power Reserved to the People, Respectively

OBAMA: "...but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. "The Warren court -- wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties." [italics added]

How many times must the evidence demonstratethat Obama uses the words of Marxism? If he is no Marxist, why use the languageof Marxism? Obama is lying--by ommission. When he, or Joe Biden, are asked aboutObama's Marxism, no one deny's that he is. They deflate the question by sayingwhat it is that Obama is trying to accomplish and they do it using words thateveryone likes to hear--but they don't deny it.

The redistribution of wealth is socialism. Marx did write the phrase spoken by that Florida newscaster when she questioned Biden: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." That means take from those who can be taken from; give it to those from whom nothing can be taken. This is the doctrine of economic justice Obama spoke of.

Obama says that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we (the government) are not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power.

It is no longer We the People. He also says something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints, constraints put there in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers specifically to prevent men such as Obama from attempting to subvert the individual sovereignty they called unalienable.